Better then using food for fuel...

Methanol Wins It’s time to open up the Open Road with H.R. 1687.

On August 2, I published an open wager on National Review Online. I offered to bet up to ten people $10,000 each that I could take my 2007 Chevy Cobalt, which is not a flex-fuel car, and, running it on 100 percent methanol, get at least 24 miles per gallon on the highway. Since methanol averages less than half the price of gasoline — and can readily be made from coal, natural gas, or any kind of biomass without exception — this would demonstrate superior transportation economy from a non-petroleum fuel that is producible from plentiful American resources. Unfortunately, no one took the bet. That fact alone says a lot. Of the 7 billion people on this planet, there are about a million or so who know a great deal about cars. Clearly, not one of them was sufficiently doubtful that it could be done to put his money on the line. Although it left me short a nice chunk of easy cash, the refusal of anyone to accept my challenge should have settled the matter. But some people, while refusing to take the bet, still demanded that I conduct the test anyway. I did, and here are the results.

First, I ran the car on 100 percent methanol. This required replacing the fuel-pump seal made of Viton, which is not methanol compatible, with one made of Buna-N, which is. The new part cost 41 cents, retail. In order to take proper advantage of methanol’s very high octane rating (about 109), I advanced the timing appropriately. This dramatically improved the motor efficiency and allowed the ordinarily sedate sedan to perform with a significantly more sporty spirit. As measured on the dyno, horsepower increased 10 percent. With these modifications complete, I took my Cobalt out for a road test. The result: 24.6 miles per gallon. When I first made the bet, many commentators thought that I would aim for high-efficiency performance with high-octane fuel by increasing the compression ratio of the engine (which is how race-car drivers using methanol have done it for the past half-century). However, with modern cars using electronic fuel injection, this is unnecessary. Instead, the necessary changes to the engine can be made simply by adjusting the Engine Control Unit software. Thus, except for switching the fuel-pump seal as noted above, no physical changes to the car were required. Other critics commented that while I might be able to achieve good fuel economy, the idea was impractical because the emissions would not be acceptable. In response, I had the car tested for emissions with 100 percent methanol (M100), 60 percent methanol (M60), and ordinary gasoline (i.e., E10, which contains about 10 percent ethanol), and for comparison, did mileage tests for these alternatives as well. The results of all these tests are shown in the table below. It can be seen that, far from failing to meet emissions standards, the Cobalt running on methanol was extremely clean, beating both the strict Colorado emissions standards and the national EPA averages by an order of magnitude. The complete elimination of carbon-monoxide emissions when using M60 is particularly remarkable — so much so that I initially thought it was an experimental error caused by faulty equipment at the emissions test station. I tested it again at a different station and got the same result. Returning to the subject of fuel economy, this can be evaluated by dividing the miles per gallon by the pre-tax spot price of the fuels in question in order to obtain the pre-tax miles per dollar shown in the table above. It can be seen that when methanol is used, fuel-economy improvements of 40 percent can be achieved. (The spot price shown in the table is the New York Harbor spot price of gasoline and the non-discounted Methanex spot price, both averaged over the past year.)

These results should not be too surprising. Methanol contains about half the energy content of gasoline, but its high octane allows it to be burned more efficiently, and thus obtain two-thirds of the mileage. The fact that the Cobalt could easily be made to use it should be no shock either: While not a flex-fuel car, the Cobalt uses the same E-37 computer and the same engine as GM’s HHR, which is a flex-fuel car. In fact, all GM cars sold in the U.S. for the past five years use either the E-37 (for small cars) or the equally flex-fuel-capable E-38 (for larger cars), and so all are capable of flex-fuel operation provided they are programmed correctly. The same is true at Ford, whose cars, whether flex-fuel or not, indiscriminately use the same “black oak,” “green oak,” or “silver oak” computers. Without question, the same must be the case for European and Japanese cars as well, since all are sold in Brazil, where flex-fuel capability is mandatory.

There was a time when adding flex-fuel capability to an automobile increased its cost by about $100. This is no longer true. Now almost allnew cars already have flex-fuel hardware, and could easily be marketed as flex-fuel vehicles. Yet the automakers have failed to do so. This is an extraordinary disservice to the nation, because it is preventing us from meeting our fuel needs using our own resources. The United States has only about 4 billion tons of oil reserves, but over 270 billion tons of coal, unknowably vast supplies of natural gas, and by far the world’s most powerful agricultural sector — all of which could be used to produce methanol. Yet instead of being able to put these assets effectively to use to meet our transportation needs, we are being forced to buy 5 billion barrels per year of imported oil. At $100 per barrel, this is costing us $500 billion per year, a deduction from our GDP equal to that required to support 5 million jobs, at $100,000 annually per job. The Open Fuel Standard bill (H.R. 1687) would remedy this situation by requiring automakers to activate the flex-fuel capabilities of their vehicles. This would open the market to fuels producible from plentiful domestic resources not under cartel control, free us from looting by OPEC, create millions of jobs, slash our deficit, reduce the flow of income to the Islamists, and cushion us from counter-effects should forceful action be required to deal with threats such as the Iranian nuclear-bomb program. Introduced by Reps. John Shimkus (R., Ill.) and Eliot Engel (D., N.Y.), its current bipartisan list of sponsors includes liberals such as Jim McDermott (D., Wash.), Allyson Schwartz (D., Pa.), Steve Israel (D., N.Y.), and Howard Berman (D., Calif.) to conservatives Dan Burton (R., Ind.), Roscoe Bartlett (R., Md.), Tom Cole (R., Okla.), and Allen West (R., Fla.), as well as many in between. It is a bill clearly in the national interest, and should be supported by everyone from left to right. By eliminating the artificial incompatibility between the vehicles we drive and the fuels we can make ourselves, the Open Fuel Standard bill will unchain the Invisible Hand, creating a true free market in vehicle fuels. Those reluctant to embrace it need to answer the following questions: In whose interest is it that Americans should continue to be denied fuel choice? In whose interest is it that America’s vast natural-gas, coal, and biomass resources remain unusable as a source of liquidvehicle fuel? In whose interest is it that America continue to give hundreds of billions of dollars each year to foreign potentates bent upon our destruction, instead of paying our own people to make fuel out of our own resources? In whose interest is it that a foreign cartel retains unlimited power to raise the cost of our fuel? In whose interest is it that we remain in the power of our enemies? Finally, should their interests be allowed to prevail, or should ours? The fault, dear reader, is not in our cars, but in ourselves, that we are tributaries. We can set ourselves free, but action is required. — Dr. Robert Zubrin is president of Pioneer Astronautics, a member of the Steering Committee of Americans for Energy, and author of Energy Victory: Winning the War on Terror by Breaking Free of Oil. His next book, Merchants of Despair: Radical Environmentalists, Criminal Pseudoscientists, and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism, will be published by Encounter Books in February.

Democrat culture of corruption

Bill Richardson under investigation for 2008 presidential campaign violations, sources say

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. -- A federal grand jury is investigating former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson over possible campaign-finance violations stemming from his 2008 presidential run, including allegations that he arranged for supporters to pay off a woman who planned to say they had engaged in an extramarital affair, according to people familiar with the inquiry.

Several of Richardson's close associates have been granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for their testimony before the panel in Albuquerque, the people said. The panel is one of several grand juries in recent years to examine aspects of Richardson's administration and campaigns.

Richardson, 64, who is at an environmental conference in Nigeria this week, did not return repeated calls and emails seeking comment. His office declined to provide the names of his lawyers.

Jennifer Poersch, the senior finance adviser for his presidential campaign, said that she was "not aware of any wrongdoing or any inappropriate fundraising," and that she hadn't been called to testify before the grand jury.

The US attorney's office in Albuquerque would not confirm or deny the grand-jury probe. Those familiar with the case said that indictments were possible in coming weeks, but that the inquiry could conclude with no charges filed. The probe was first reported by the Albuquerque Journal two weeks ago.

The investigation comes at a difficult time for New Mexico Democrats, who are struggling to regroup after losing the governor's mansion -- Richardson could not run again because of term limits -- and a number of state legislative seats in 2010. The state is considered a key battleground in the 2012 presidential election and also may be crucial to control of the US Senate, as both parties fight for a vacant seat now held by retiring Democratic Sen. Jeff Bingaman.

The most explosive matter under investigation involves allegations by a former member of Richardson's inner circle. That individual said Richardson's political allies gave $250,000 to placate a woman who was considering suing the governor in 2007, exposing their alleged extramarital affair, according to people familiar with the federal probe. The woman's identity has not been disclosed, and the type of suit considered has not been confirmed.

Those familiar with the case say prosecutors are seeking to prove that the alleged payment to the woman was a de facto campaign contribution to Richardson, intended to further his bid for higher office. In that case, the alleged payment could have violated federal campaign-finance law if it was not reported and did not comply with limits on political donations.

Federal investigators are piecing together a paper trail of checks and international wire transfers surrounding the alleged payment to the woman, some people familiar with the matter said. The grand jury is also examining other alleged financial irregularities, as well as whether Richardson used his clout as governor to push through a controversial road project that benefited a major political contributor, the people said.

Read more at The Wall Street Journal

Obama's people. He said so himself. Communists fight so they can rule not for a better world

Activist Boasts of Communist Leadership in Occupy Movement – Links to Re-election of Obama

While addressing a gathering of the international communist front World Federation of Democratic Youth, in Lisbon Portugal, November 10, 2011, Young Communist League USA organizer Lisa Bergmann, boasted of communist leadership in the US “Occupy” movement and their desire to harness the movement to the re-election campaign of President Barack Obama.

Lisa Bergmann

Addressing the assembled young comrades, Bergmann made no bones about communist participation in, and initiation of , “Occupy” encampments all over the United States. (Emphasis added)

My name is Lisa Bergmann from the Young Communist League USA. On behalf of our organization I would like to thank WFDY and the Japaneses Communist Party for hosting this inspiring, well-organized event and for ensuring that the YCLUSA could be here with all of you today. The Young Communist League USA stands firmly, as it always has, united with all of you against U.S. imperialism, greed, and war…

Youth in the United States are shouting at the top of their lungs that the U.S. capitalist economic system has failed them… thousands of youth in the United States are taking to the streets to demand a better world.

Inspired by the “Arab Spring” and other youth movements in Europe and Latin America, the Occupy Wall Street Movement began in the heart of the U.S. capitalist system, and has now spread to more than 300 cities in the United States. Occupy is predominantly a youth movement, calling attention to the unprecedented wealth inequalities that exist in our country… While the participants in the Occupy movement are members of a wide variety of groups, they all identify as part of the “99” percent of people who do not have access to the country’s wealth. The labor movement in the U.S. has been one of the strongest allies to the Occupy movement. Other participants in the Occupy movement include peace activist groups, veterans, elected officials, immigrant rights groups, and of course the Communist Party and the Young Communist League! The Young Communist League, even though we are in a re-building phase, has participated in Occupy in every city where we exist, and has even initiated the Occupy chapters in some cities. Leaders of the Young Communist League and leaders of the Communist party have been arrested in Chicago on two separate occasions during police raids on the Occupy movement.

Bergmann went on to highlight the role of the labor movement and the rallying cry of “job creation” to unite a the youth and labor movement behind socialist aligned Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky and President Obama’s “job creation” bills.

Also, the networks of student-labor alliances in the country have achieved a new level of coordination and power. I had the privilege of attending the AFL-CIO’s “Next Up” conference in September, where 800 young workers and leaders gathered to plot the future of the union movement in the U.S. Student leaders who attended the conference reported winning many victories on university campuses. For example, under the direction of United Students Against Sweatshops, students at over 15 universities nation-wide have built a successful campaign to end their universities’ contracts with the food-service provider “Sodexo,” because of Sodexo’s violations of workers rights in the U.S. and abroad. The labor movement in general has made dramatic investments in young people over the last period of time.

Young people are also leading the fight for job creation. The Young Communist League has been collecting signatures nation-wide in support of President Obama’s “American Jobs Act”, and Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky’s “Emergency Jobs to Restore the American Dream Act”. If passed, these bills would create over 4.2 million new jobs in the U.S. Last week, in the city where I live, the Young Communist League and other youth led a march of 200 people in support of jobs for youth and jobs for all.

Bergmann went on to boast of recent growth in YCL ranks;

As I mentioned earlier, The Young Communist League is in a period of re-building in the United States, and has been for the last year and a half. We are making good progress. We held 5 YCL schools in the last year, in Los Angeles, New Haven, Chicago, Florida, and Texas. At the schools we taught classes about Marx and Lenin, the labor movement, ending racism, and other topics. Also, hundreds of youth are joining the Young Communist League every month online.

Because youth are so disillusioned with capitalism in the U.S. right now, this moment is a huge opportunity for building solidarity with and awareness of countries where socialism or communism exist as the dominant system. This includes Cuba and the growing anti-imperialist governments in Latin America. This past weekend the communist party and the YCL held a joint meeting on building solidarity with Cuba and the Cuban five.

Finally, Bergmann tied together her talk with a firm commitment to the election of Barack Obama. Despite disappoints with Obama in some areas, Bergmann and the YCLUSA remain firmly behind the President and are committed to guiding less politically aware elements in the “Occupy” movement to support Obama and the Democrats. To Bergmann, the communist’s job is to force President Obama to do the things he really wants to , but can’t.

I will speak briefly about the 2012 elections in the U.S. The election of Obama in 2008 was a tremendous victory for the people of the United States and indeed for people all over the world. The election of our first African American President has been a huge blow to the entrenched racism in our country. Young people are the reason that Obama won the presidency, as he earned 66 percent of the youth vote. Obama continues to push policies that benefit working-class people in the United States. And Republicans continually block these policies to make Obama look ineffective.

Youth in the United States also have major disappointments with the Obama administration that cannot be ignored. These include the large number of people who have been deported during his presidency due to immigration issues, which exceeds the number deported during Bush’s presidency. These also include his foreign policy towards Libya, Cuba, Afghanistan, and other regions where aggressive imperialist policy has continued. We in the Young Communist League USA look forward to working with all of you to push the U.S. government to reach a cooperative, rather than imperialist, approach to foreign policy around the world.

That said, the fight for jobs and for real solutions MUST include re-electing Obama in 2012. It is the role of the YCL to emphasize this wherever we go, and to try to push youth in the Occupy movement and elsewhere who do not want to work with any politicians to understand that being absent from the political process is only allowing the ultra-right wing to bui ld power. This is also so that working people can continue to focus on building a viable movement for themselves in the United States, that will be in a position to stand in solidarity with working people throughout the world. Angela Davis, when visiting Occupy Wall Street on October 31st, said that “It is up to US to build a movement. And it is up to Obama to respond to that movement. But he cannot do it on his own.”

Will Lisa Bergmann and her YCL comrades continue to play a decisive role in the “Occupy” movement? Will they help president Obama pass his planned Jobs Bill – a huge government job creation scheme modeled on the communist infiltrated Works Progress Administration of the 1930s?

Will the YCL and their older Communist Party USA comrades be able to unite the “Occupy”, labor and social movements into a big enough force to return Barack Obama to the White House in 2012? If the they succeed, they will have proven beyond doubt that a well organized, albeit tiny force can change the world.

But then, has real change ever come about through anything else?

The totalitarian impulse

Holder calls for media silence, watchdogs scratch fleas

Established media freedom groups are ignoring Attorney General Eric Holder’s demand that The Daily Caller stop writing about congressional calls for his resignation.

The groups’ silence contrasts with their vigorous defense against Republican critics of the news media, and contrasts with the praise given to the media’s aggressive coverage of decisions by officials in George W. Bush’s presidency.

The media watchdogs’ silence comes as President Barack Obama’s administration faces political peril with public approval having fallen to the level held by President Jimmy Carter. A Holder resignation would likely add to the administration’s immediate problems, and increase the GOP’s 2012 momentum.

Attorney General John Ashcroft “never asked a reporter to stop reporting on a subject, no matter how uncomfortable it may have been,” said Mark Corallo, who served as Ashcroft’s press secretary during his 2001 to 2005 term, when many media articles painted Ashcroft as a proponent of excessive police powers after 9/11.

“If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. … We understood that we would take a lot of heat,” he said. “Freedom of speech and of the press — our wonderful First Amendment — allowed the media to cover things that made us uncomfortable.”

The controversy began on Nov. 29, when TheDC’s reporter asked Holder about congressional calls for his resignation. The question prompted the nation’s top law enforcement official to point his finger at the reporter and demand that “you need to stop this. It’s not an organic thing that’s just happening. You guys are behind it.”

“I don’t recall [Attorney General Alberto] Gonzales ever talking with a reporter like that — ever,” said a former department official. In 2007, Gonzales was subject to numerous critical articles following Democratic legislators’ investigations into the administration’s decision to fire several district attorneys, all of whom had earlier been hired for political slots by the same administration.

Holder’s spokesman declined to respond to requests from TheDC that he further explain his demand.

The Washington Post’s media critic, Erik Wemple, did not mention the episode, and instead wrote about an amusing book review, a Rachel Maddow commentary and the cancellation of a sex-related column at a university newspaper.

The New York Times noted the outburst by merely highlighting a link to TheDC’s article.

Politico described Holder’s aggressive finger-pointing as a “plea.”

TMPMuckraker recast Holder’s directive as media criticism when it said he “told a reporter … that the news organization was ginning up calls for him to resign.”

When asked by TheDC for a comment via e-mail, Lucy Dalglish, the executive director of the Reporters Committee for a Free Press, simply said “no.” When asked to explain her silence, she replied she was traveling and did not have the “ability to carefully research and analyze what happened in a thoughtful way.”

David Weigel, a controversial writer now at Slate Magazine, supported the TheDC’s reporting, but didn’t challenge Holder’s extraordinary demand.

Some criticism of Holder was offered by Gene Policinski, senior vice president and executive director of the Freedom Forum’s First Amendment Center, after TheDC called for a comment. “I wasn’t aware of the episode. … I find it extraordinary that this has not gotten attention,” he said.

“The question, of course, is whether it is possible for a government official of that rank to essentially separate an offhand admonition from a government threat,” he said.

However, Policinski muted his criticism by comparing Holder’s demand to the controversy over 2001 remarks made by Bush’s spokesman, Ari Fleischer,

In a daily press conference shortly after the 9/11 atrocity, Fleischer rebuked a GOP legislator’s crude comment about people who wear turbans and also rebuked Bill Maher for his attribution of bravery to the 9/11 murderers. The statements “are reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do,” said Fleischer.

This bipartisan criticism was portrayed by many media reports as a White House effort to chill speech by Democrats. Policinski echoed this criticism on Nov. 30, saying “from an academic, [Fleischer’s statement] might be an interesting admonition, from the press secretary of the U.S. president, it took on an altogether different character.”

But, according to Corallo, “there’s a big difference between [the attorney general asking for a delay because of national security concerns] and saying to a reporter, ‘I don’t like this story. you guys are keeping it alive, and you really ought to stop reporting on it… That’s petulance.”

Some friend

Obama Pats Himself on the Back for “Supporting” Israel

Fast and Furious liar

BREAKING NEWS on Fast and Furious: Obama Knew in May 2010?

To date Barack Obama, the dispenser of hope and change and the presiding officer over the least transparent presidency in history, has claimed he only learned about Fast and Furious earlier this year. However, with each new document dump Obama’s timeframe seems to be as inaccurate (or as purposely misleading) as Attorney General Eric Holder’s.

For example, just months after he took office it was evident he was focused on a Fast and Furious-like operation, ostensibly aimed at cutting down on gun trafficking on the southern border. Thus, on March 24, 2009, Deputy Attorney General David Ogden made the following announcement:

The President has directed us to take action to fight [Mexican] cartels…and Attorney General Holder and I are taking several new and aggressive steps as part of the administration’s comprehensive plan.

And the following month, April 2009, he stood beside Mexican President Felipe Calderón and uttered words we now recognize as hypocritical and duplicitous at best:

I continue to believe that we can respect and honor the Second Amendment right in our Constitution — the rights of sportsmen and hunters and homeowners that want to keep their families safe — to lawfully bear arms, while dealing with assault weapons that, as we know here in Mexico, are used to fuel violence.

Fast forward one year, and White House logs show that then-Deputy Attorney General Gary Grindler met personally with Obama four times between May 7 and May 19, 2010.

Just in case Grindler’s name doesn’t set off sirens in your mind, he had received an in depth briefing on Fast and Furious on March 12, 2010. (This briefing came via an ATF slideshow which I covered in a post for Big Government earlier this year.) During this same briefing, Grindler was provided with details concerning the number of times that a straw purchaser named Uriel Patino had purchased guns during Fast and Furious. (Patino’s total weapon acquisition numbered approx. 720 guns.)

By the way, Grindler is no longer a Deputy Attorney General. Rather, he is Holder’s Chief of Staff.

So what do you figure he and Obama talked about when they met four times in May 2010?

Perhaps a better question is—do you think there’s any way they didn’t talk about Fast and Furious?

Even the LA Times admits Fast and Furious was at its height then, so I really don’t think Obama and Grindler used their meetings to plan Obama’s next vacation. Rather, I think Obama may have known about Fast and Furious nearly a year before he admits.

Looks like it’s time for Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA) to broaden his inquiry into this mess.

Some racial epithets are permitted, if you're a Democrat

PICKET: Rep. West jokes about being called an 'Uncle Tom' and 'Oreo' by CBC members at DC's funniest celeb event

Congressman Allen West, Florida Republican, was the only lawmaker to walk away with a prize at the annual D.C.'s Funniest Celebrity contest on Wednesday night. Other Capitol Hill lawmakers who competed were Senator Scott Brown, Massachusetts Republican, and Congressman Earl Blumenauer, Oregon Democrat. The Florida Republican won third runner up by telling jokes about life in Washington as a black conservative on Capitol Hill.

Rep. West's set included jokes about how he was welcomed, so to speak, as the only Republican in the Congressional Black Caucus. He started with a story about Congressman John Lewis, Georgia Democrat:

"The first thing I got sworn into was the Congressional Black Caucus. Now you talk about being fun--being the only black Republican in the Congressional Black Caucus, but I did kind of get a warm welcome. John Lewis...John Lewis from Atlanta, Georgia--same neighborhood that I grew up in down there...great time. And so I'm walking up behind John Lewis and he really let me feel like this is a family man, because I kept hearing him talk about some guy named Uncle Tom."

Congressman West did not stop there. Rep. Maxine Waters, California Democrat, was also on his hit list of jokes about CBC members.

"There was Maxine Waters and I thought, "Man, Maxine Waters must really have a sweet tooth because she kept talking about Oreos. and Double Stuffs at that."

"So I figured this was gonna be nice. I've got a family oriented guy here with John Lewis. I got someone who likes Oreo Cookies with Maxine Waters, but I'll tell you what, it's been a good experience being there with the Congressional Black Caucus."

AUDIO

Ultimately, Jamie Weinstein of the Daily Caller took first prize at the WMAL sponsored event at DC's Improv, while former GOP candidate for Maryland Governor Brian Murphy won second runner up.

The solar scam

Solar power bankruptcies loom as prices collapse

Vote fraud is how the Democrats roll

President Obama's Justice Department Opposed Enforcement of Anti-Vote Fraud Laws

President Obama's Justice Department is doing its part to maximize the Democratic turnout in the 2012 elections by filing "motor voter" suits across the country that claim state officials are not circulating voter registration forms in social service agencies.

The lawsuit filed against Louisiana this past summer is closely timed with a separate suit advanced by ACORN's Project Vote affiliate and the NAACP. Gov. Bobby Jindal's top officials have vowed to put up a vigorous fight, but other states including Rhode Island have rolled over to accept agreements that go beyond the scope of written law.

Anita MonCrief, a former Project Vote employee turned conservative activist, warns that the consent agreements that are becoming operative throughout the country will preclude state officials from moving against potential instances of voter fraud.

Under Section 7 of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), commonly known as "motor voter," state health and welfare agencies are required to circulate voter registration forms. Under Section 8, state officials are required to clean and update their voter rolls by purging the names of deceased residents, felons and anyone else who is ineligible.

Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) has sent a letter addressed to Attorney General Eric Holder asking the department to enforce Section 8.

"The Department later filed a lawsuit against Louisiana alleging that the state has violated its obligations under Section 7 of the NVRA," he wrote. "However, at the same time, absolutely no effort is being made to enforce Section 8 of the same law. Section 8 requires states to conduct voter roll cleaning to purge ineligible felons and dead voters from corrupting the election process. The two provisions act together as counterparts, but it is evident that the Justice Department is not enforcing them equally."

But there's a problem.

Obama's Justice Department is "philosophically opposed" to enforcing that part of the law that calls for voter registration rolls to be purged of ineligible names, J. Christian Adams, and former attorney in the DOJ's Voting Section, said during a forum Tulane University Law School in November. A full report on his talk is available at the Pelican Institute for Public Policy blog.

The Justice Department's "selective enforcement" of the NVRA is a major of theme of a new book by Adams entitled "Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department."

He also describes an "industry of voter fraud deniers" that could give the left a decided advantage in the 2012 elections.

Salt

Federal Effort to Commandeer the Nation's Salt Shakers Is Based on Bad Science

Scientists are split over whether salt is a silent killer, or just a silent seasoning

Steve Chapman

"Put down the salt shaker and back away from the table. And don't even think about going for the chips." Those are lines you may hear on a TV police drama of the future, when the federal drive to curb salt consumption reaches cruising speed.

Last year, the government's Institute of Medicine urged the Food and Drug Administration to "gradually step down the maximum amount of salt that can be added to foods, beverages, and meals." The FDA is listening. In September, it published a notice concerning issues "associated with the development of targets for sodium reduction in foods to promote reduction of excess sodium intake."

It is currently focusing on voluntary steps to "promote gradual, achievable and sustainable reduction of sodium intake over time." But if it doesn't get its way, it may go beyond gentle encouragement. "Nothing is off the table," a spokesperson declared last year.

Salt has always been prized as a culinary marvel—perking up flavors, masking bitter elements and preventing spoilage. Soup without salt is excellent for nourishing your garden, but unfit to eat. Any number of dishes taste better with a dash or two.

But many experts and public health organizations see salt as a killer, which in excess amounts causes high blood pressure and heart disease. They think we would all be better off eating less, and they want the government to make sure we do. Dr. Walter Willett, chairman of the nutrition department at the Harvard School of Public Health, says that "we must treat sodium reduction as a critical public health priority."

But this clear certitude keeps getting clouded by confounding evidence. "For every study that suggests that salt is unhealthy, another does not," an article this year in Scientific American noted.

The Journal of the American Medical Association has reported that people who consume less salt are actually more likely to die of heart disease. Recently, a study in the American Journal of Hypertensionfound that reducing dietary sodium can cause a harmful response from the body. "I can't really see, if you look at the total evidence, that there is any reason to believe there is a net benefit of decreasing sodium intake in the general population," the chief researcher told Reuters.

Nor is it clear that third parties can get people to reduce their ingestion of sodium. We have been hearing for decades about the alleged hazards of a high-salt diet, and anyone looking for alternatives can easily find them. But today, Americans consume the same amount of salt as they did 50 years ago, when bacon, eggs and hash browns were regarded as a wholesome breakfast.

One survey of 33 countries found that despite vast differences in cuisine, people generally take in about 3,700 milligrams of sodium a day, well above what the FDA recommends, decade after decade.

How come? The theory is that we are all biologically predisposed to seek out that much and no more. The Salt Institute, which represents salt companies, makes the argument—self-serving but not implausible—that if it is reduced in food, people will up their calorie intake to satisfy their craving.

But even if we assume too much salt is a bad thing, federal regulators have no grounds to dictate how much our food may contain. Any consumers who want less sodium, after all, are free to spurn restaurant meals and grocery items laden with heavy doses.

Food companies don't use salt because they like it but because their customers do. If consumer preferences change—say, in response to incessant warnings from medical groups—food products will change as well.

Classifying excess sodium consumption as a "public health" danger mutilates a useful concept. Air pollution, West Nile virus, and E. coli are matters of public health because they inflict harm on broad groups of people against their will and often without their knowledge. No one, however, ingests salt without raising fork to mouth.

If I burn toxic waste in my yard, I may force you to inhale compounds that cause illness or death. If I make a meal of pretzels and Virginia ham, by contrast, I pose no hazard to anyone but myself. You can avoid this "public health" threat without the FDA barging into your kitchen.

Eating foods with salt is not a public decision but a private one. That's private, as in: Keep out.

An example of the insanity of Sharia law

Jailed Afghan rape victim freed but 'to marry attacker'

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has pardoned a rape victim who was jailed for adultery after she apparently agreed to marry her attacker.

The woman, named as Gulnaz, gave birth in jail to a daughter who has been serving her sentence with her.

Human rights groups say hundreds of women in Afghan jails are victims of rape or domestic violence.

Gulnaz's lawyer told the BBC she hoped that the government would allow Gulnaz freedom of choice.

"In my conversations with Gulnaz she told me that if she had the free choice she would not marry the man who raped her," said Kimberley Motley.

Earlier this month, Gulnaz told the BBC that after she was raped she was charged with adultery.

"At first my sentence was two years," she said. "When I appealed it became 12 years. I didn't do anything. Why should I be sentenced for so long?"